- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 05:58:21 +1000
- To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 04/07/2012, at 5:54 AM, mike amundsen wrote:
> Yes, I think safety and idempotence are most needed in this table of previously registered methods.
>
> Per Julian's comment: if one of the reasons to leave idempotence off the list is that we don't know whether some of these methods are idempotent or not, then I'd opt for saying that in this table ("UNK", etc.) rather than leaving that property out of the table completely.
>
> On a related note, I wasn't able to find any details on the method registry. Anyone able to give me some pointers?
It's set up here:
https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#method.registry
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:58:52 UTC